Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jim Victory I really don't think the two camps are mutually exclusive.
Technical knowledge helps you accomplish the task of capturing the shot without the need to dwell on it's various aspects. This allows you to explore the artistic side without interference from these technical aspects.
I really don't think you can instill emotion in a shot. What you can do is elicit emotion with your composition and content. Being able to view that moment and capture it for others to see or interpret is the element that allows those who view it to make their own determination of it's meaning or emotion.
I understand you may wish to evoke that response but it is up to the viewer to make that determination based on how they interpret the shot.
An artist that paints a picture may be trying to express a certain thought or emotion in his or her work but that may not be what a viewer of that work may see. Whose right and whose wrong? No one is because everyone has a different view of things and photography isn't any different.
This is why it is easier to discuss the technical aspects of photography because there is a definitive element in which we compare things. This is not true with art because everyones viewpoint has merit irregardless of whether it can be defined.
I would like to take as an example Gordon's photo of the three men. Now this isn't a critique and I'm not arguing whether it has merit or if Gordon's viewpoint is valid or not. I'm not indicating it is not techincally sound because he cut off their heads  He is already stated his purpose in that shot by not showing the faces of the men. There is no right or wrong in this shot. He has laid it out there for your interpretation. He has already told you what that shot evoked in him and it is up to you to see what it evokes in you.
Would I have taken this shot like that, No! but it wasn't my shot it was Gordon's and it was Gordon's vision that captured this moment in hopes that those that viewed it may take away something from it as well. |
Certainly I think the technical 'craft' and the 'art' parts are equally important. But for some, photography has nothing what so ever to do with art - they actually take offense at the notion.
And certainly people who view an image bring their own viewpoint, emotions and thoughts to the image - and certainly get different things from them. However, you start to skirt very close to deconstructionist criticism, where there are no right interpretations and everything means anything and nothing at the same time. It is this sort of discussion that makes things like the Lord of the Rings be a metaphor for the current Gulf war. After all,
if I think it is when I read it, it must be - right ? Or does the author's original intent and meaning have a higher value than what I think it is about ?
But I also do think you can instill different emotions in a shot - by the creative choices you
make, the same scene can be transformed from something bright and happy to dark and sinister - the choices the photographer can make certainly do influence the emotional content of an image - now if a viewer gets that or something different is a slightly seperate discussion.
My own personal view is that photography is really about communication. I take pictures to share with people - at a basic level to show them what I see and how I feel. In the same way most people who write, don't write for themselves, but in the hope that they'll
get read and in some way connect with their readers.
Some others might shoot for therapy, never planning on showing them - same way some people could write, never planning to share - but that doesn't work for me.
LIKES Received: 
Linear Mode
